Abstract
Educators emphatically, and sometimes justifiably, criticize educational technology for concentrating too often on products and hardware, and too seldom on learners. Emerging approaches to developing rich learning environments use computer mediated communication, and a host of interactive strategies to connect people in varied and robust ways, and writers such as Kozma (2000) challenge educational technologists to think beyond the design of instruction and consider the design of learning environments. But traditional understandings of learning environments and interaction usually stop short of the kind of engagement that will allow learning communities to form. This paper examines theoretical and conceptual issues around promoting the growth of virtual learning communities, and it considers issues around using communication technologies in formal and informal learning environments.

Theoretical Context of Community
The metaphor of community has been used to describe a wide range of contexts, from communities of practice in the corporate world (Brown & Isaacs, 1995; Wenger, 1998) to virtual community networks (Brook & Boal, 1995; Horn, 1997; Rheingold, 1993; Schuler, 1996). In the simplest sense, communities are collections of individuals who are bound together for some reason, and these reasons define the boundaries of the communities. When one considers the fundamental notion of community, it is apparent that the language of communities can be used to inform our understanding of virtual learning communities and how they operate (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).

Communities are Resilient
Communities spring up everywhere. They are a natural extension of who we are as social animals. They are organic, and they resist being confined by the constraints that social engineers would place on them. As such, communities cannot be created; rather, they emerge when conditions nurture them. When boundaries are drawn around a community, the community seems to find a way to redefine itself—to mutate. This is not to suggest that communities are disorganized; on the contrary they can be highly organized. Moller (1998) reminds us that the conditions for developing a community of learners may include some of the systematic processes of instructional design such as analysis, assessment, design and development. But creating a community is not simply a matter of laying out a set of rules and providing a structure; it is an act of supporting the natural development of relationships. This is particularly important in virtual learning communities, where the idea of community is used as a rallying point for discussion and interaction among learners. Too often, courses are provide a structure for interaction such as

requiring students to post a set number of messages on each topic under discussion. This type of protocol can serve to promote trivial discussion, and consequently mitigate the natural flow of communication. There are circumstances where rigid communication protocols may be necessary, but they do not necessarily contribute to the development of a sense of community.

Communities are Hospitable
Hospitality is an important, moral dimension of communities that work well. People in communities are bound together, and they maintain that cohesion by practicing hospitality and courtesy to members. Is everyone in every community hospitable? Of course not. But community members need to feel that they are in a hospitable environment generally, or they will limit their participation in a group setting. This is significant for virtual learning communities, where people are invited to test ideas and expose their level of understanding to the group. Uncertainty is prized, because it invites curiosity and intellectual growth. But uncertain learners are also vulnerable, and a learning environment has to be hospitable to support the kind of experimentation with ideas that results in learning.

Communities have Life Cycles
Stages of life seem apply to almost everything, and communities are no exception. It is reasonable to think of communities as having lives that go through fairly predictable stages. An organic view of learning communities considers ways in which the communities evolve. Misanchuk, Anderson, Craner, Eddy and Smith (2000) suggest that learning communities evolve from simple cohorts by employing "increasing levels of student interaction and commitment" (p.1). In learning communities, this interaction is characterized by different ways of working together, and students move through discussion to cooperation and collaboration as the learning community emerges. The formative stage in the life of a virtual learning community is characterized by the attraction of new members. The identity of the community is malleable, and participants are typically somewhat tentative as they try out communicating and making connections with other community members. This stage of development requires a great deal of leadership. The leader at this stage is trying to set the tone of the community, attract and welcome new members to the community, and lay out the purpose and guidelines for participation with the group as it forms. At this point, the virtual learning community will be evolving from what its creators first imagined into what it will ultimately become. The purpose may change, expand or constrict, and it is the first place in which the members will either successfully or unsuccessfully impose

their will on the makeup of the community. Users will test the boundaries of the community and determine whether they will remain as members. If required to be members, they will be deciding how significant the community will be to them, or how they can shape it into something they can use. In all, it is a time of testing, negotiating, and shaping, and the match between the purpose of the community and the importance of that purpose to members will determine the length of its survival and the strength of its influence. The mature stage of life in the virtual community is ultimately achieved once the purpose, shape and operation of the community are settled. At this point the leader doesn’t have to play as central a role in negotiating the purpose and monitoring the activities of members. The purpose and codes of conduct are known, and the members of the community exercise their control over the community by doing much of the monitoring. A common indicator that a virtual community has reached a stage of maturity is when the members of the community tell a new member what the boundaries of acceptable behavior are, and describe the purpose of the community to the novitiate. In later stages of maturity, the community is more institutionalized and entrenched. Codes of conduct are more rigid, as are the boundaries around acceptable topics and modes of expression. A mature community may start to take on the trappings of terrestrial communities, and become much more formal in its operation. This may be characterized by the introduction of some form of governing body or fund raising activities, for example. Ultimately most virtual communities will be challenged to change, to undertake a metamorphosis and become a new entity with a focus that is different from the original conception of what the virtual learning community would become. It is likely that one feature of this stage will be resistance to change by some members of the community—those who most closely identify with the virtual community may fight for its preservation; the focus may turn to maintaining the organization rather than extending its purpose or mission. One of the possibilities at this stage of life is that the virtual learning community enters a period of natural decline. Ultimately, the death of a virtual learning community, or other similar organizations, may be good thing for everyone involved. It can allow organizers and members to move on to something else. The death of a virtual community is different from the death of a physical community. Despite the sense of loss and failure that some people inevitably feel, when a virtual learning community dies people are free to move without uprooting the rest of their lives as they do when physical communities perish. This is not to suggest that virtual communities are unimportant to individuals; they may in fact become as important as geographic communities to some members. But is the message for community architects “learn to adapt or prepare to die?” In most cases, yes. There may be the rare virtual community that becomes so entrenched that it will survive without significant change, but most virtual communities will

face periods of volatility. The important message is that we need to plan to address the stages of life in learning communities when we create them.

Communities are Multifaceted
It is possible to categorize communities in a host of ways— social, political, spiritual, intellectual, educational, cultural, or geographic. The focus of any particular community may emphasize one of these dimensions, but in most cases, any single community will encompass a combination of several dimensions. It is not likely that a community will draw its boundaries around a single focus to the exclusion of all others. For example, a spiritual community may have an educational mission that is accomplished primarily through social intervention. An intellectual community may focus primarily on ideas, but it may also have a political agenda. So even when we talk about virtual learning communities, it is important to realize that they exist as a subset within a dynamic set of dimensions. Given the right circumstances, any community can act as a learning community, typically when it engages in the acquisition, transformation or creation of knowledge. But most learning communities do not focus exclusively on learning. For example, a human resources division of a company may try to develop sense of community but may be most interested in knowledge management (Schwen, Kalman, Hara, & Kisling, 1998). Similarly, a community of practice in a corporate setting may devote much of its energy to identifying tacit knowledge and making the tacit knowledge explicit for the good of the company (Wenger, 1998). By contrast, online community networks may devote their resources to connecting people in new ways, sharing information, and building interpersonal relationships (Cohill, 1997), but attend to learning only peripherally. Regardless of their focus, little is actually known about how people participating in virtual environments are influenced by those environments. We might easily suppose that people who are connected electronically are enriching their interpersonal network of relationships, whereas some emerging research suggests that electronic saturation may actually contribute to a sense of isolation among participants (Kraut, Paterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukophadhyay, & Scherlia, 1998). Social critics of technology voice concerns that the values and strengths of communities are undermined by the very technology that promotes new ways of interacting with others (Ehrenfeld, 1996; Selznik, 1996). With equal force, critics of distance learning warn that technology-based courses often emphasize transmission of information and isolate learners by placing technological barriers between learners and real people (Farrow, 1999; Kessell, 1999). What may be most restricting about electronic types of learning environments is that they fail to promote a sense of community, that they remain interactive, yet

fall short of becoming communities of learners (Schwier, in press). When technology is introduced to learning communities, there is a risk of promoting interaction without the concomitant elements needed to turn a virtual learning environment into a virtual learning community. This paper uses the language of community as a window to understanding ways to construct electronic learning environments that are consistent with emerging thought in education and training. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that many learning environments do not require a community of learners—that it would be inappropriate to impose this type of engagement in cases where the learner has no need or desire to engage other learners. But there are cases where intimate engagement with others is important for rich learning to happen, and in those cases, we can learn a great deal from community development literature about how to satisfy the learner's need for additional communication.

Categories for Examining Virtual Learning Communities
In order to frame the discussion of virtual learning communities, this paper considers the elements of virtual learning communities, the different purposes served by learning communities, and the events that act as catalysts to stimulate the growth of virtual learning communities (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Aspects of virtual learning communities.

When the categories are elaborated, a number of useful topics emerge for examining the structure of communities (see Figure 2). The remainder of this paper will explore the categories in some detail.

Catalysts of Virtual Learning Communities
Communication is at the heart of any community, but especially virtual communities. Communication acts as the most important catalyst in virtual learning communities, where it spawns interaction, engagement and alignment among members of the community (see Figure 2). In terrestrial (physical) communities, communication is one of several necessary ingredients. When communication ends in a terrestrial community, the community slowly dissolves. By contrast, in virtual communities communication is the actual brick and mortar of the community. When communication ends in a virtual community, that community abruptly ends. Virtual communities are built out of words and language; communication literally holds virtual communities together. The Perceived Ideal of Interpersonal Communication The most identifiable form of participation in any community is interpersonal communication, so when we impose an idealized notion of community on a

virtual learning environment, many of us compare the idea of virtual communication with a perceived ideal of "face to face", or interpersonal1 communication. We attempt to build computer mediated communication systems that approximate "face to face" communication because we assume that face to face communication must be superior to mediated communication in some way. This assumption is worth examining. First, a comparison of features reveals that many of the features of interpersonal and virtual communication are shared (see Table 1). But this does not assume that the quality of the experience is the same. One might argue that technology is currently available that has the capability of approximating interpersonal communication characteristics, or at least to overcome most of the deficiencies associated with virtual communication. While this is no doubt true, such technology is not ubiquitous, or even typical of the majority of virtual communications systems used by learners.
Table 1. Comparison of characteristics of interpersonal communication and virtual communication. Interpersonal Communication Immediacy Requisite Skills Synchronous Interpersonal skills Social skills Virtual Communication Synchronous or Asynchronous Interpersonal skills Social skills Technological skills Media Multi-sensory Multidimensional Limited sensory Electronic Uni-dimensional or multi-dimensional 2 Flexibility Fluid Variable Technologically constrained Protocols Established Culturally bound Highly contextualized Cost Level of Intimacy
1

Emerging Contextualized

Essentially free Potentially high – typically not anonymous

Relatively costly Variable – very intimate to anonymous

The use of interpersonal communication as a synonym for “face to face” communication is taking license with conventional language used in communication theory. In communication theory, interpersonal communication could include any communication between people that doesn’t pass through a gatekeeper and that allows for immediate feedback. Interpersonal communication can embrace a number of types of communication other than “face to face” but it is used here for convenience, and recognizing that “face to face” communication is always interpersonal. 2 Unidimensional in typical cases, but more than one medium or sensory input may be used simultaneously in some cases to create a multi-dimensional message.

Fostering communication in a virtual learning community is not merely a matter of making virtual communication as good as face to face communication (see Table 2). Interpersonal communication is not adequate for some things, despite its reputation as an ideal form of communication. For example, in settings that are highly charged emotionally, the barrier of a virtual medium can serve as a protective screen for those trying to communicate. Consider court cases that include the testimony of children. Often, such testimony is provided on videotape rather than in person to protect the child. Similarly, a student might want to challenge a teacher's judgment from the relatively safe position behind the keyboard of a computer. In both of these examples, interpersonal communication is perceived as threatening, and virtual communication provides a more comfortable context.

Table 2. Summary of positive and negative features of interpersonal and virtual communication Interpersonal Communication Positive Features Ready access to non-verbal elements of communication (body language, gestures, facial expressions) Misconceptions can be corrected fluidly and quickly No barrier between communicators – no gatekeeper Synchronicity – communication happens in real time and is effervescent Virtual Communication Availability, accessibility of the receiver Medium acts as buffer between communicators Increased access for synchronous and asynchronous communication Time to reflect privately and to compose thoughts Those with sensory disabilities have additional mode for communicating Synchronous and asynchronous communication possible Negative Features Dependent upon interpersonal communication skills Reflection is done publicly Body language and expressions may be misinterpreted No buffer or gatekeeper between communicators Individuals with sensory disabilities may be excluded from communication Limited opportunity for asynchronous communication Requires literacy skills, technological skills Quality of communication is mediumdependent. Socioeconomic factors: communication among the privileged or wealthy? Difficult to avoid communication Barrier between communicators Synchronous communication more expensive/technology dependent than asynchronous communication

On the other hand, I can’t imagine preferring mediated communication for counseling a student in crisis. Yes, telephones or even computer conferencing might be the best available option at a particular time, and indeed might be equal to the task. But my preference would be for face-to-face communication, so that I could take advantage of the spontaneity and nuances best achieved in a more intimate setting. Similar pros and cons existed for earlier communication technologies in precisely the same way as they do for computer technologies. Telephones made it possible for people to communicate over vast distances very easily, but telephony requires one to enter into a contract with a telephone company, pay charges for calls, learn how to use the machinery, and most importantly, learn how to overcome its limitations and communicate effectively with someone else. Lest

this seems like a trivial comparison because of its familiarity, the point is easily made if one convenes a telephone conference call with several people who have never used teleconferencing technology. It is challenging to use technology to convene a conference, but dealing with the people at the other end of the phone is even more challenging. Participants have to learn new conventions for setting agendas, being courteous, taking turns, and for making points forcefully but not intrusively. Teleconferencing technology offers opportunities and liberation from the tyranny of travel, and at the same time, it imposes significant barriers. Perhaps it is a matter of understanding and acknowledging that mediated communication as an entity is useful, but fundamentally different from face to face communication. However useful it might be to try to mimic interpersonal communication with virtual communication for some things, we should question whether it is useful to think of universal ideals for any type of communication. Intera ction, Engagement and Alignment Three central notions orbit the concept of communication in a virtual learning community: interaction, engagement, and alignment (after Wenger, 1998). These are the products of communication when it acts as a catalyst for community. The notion of interaction (interplay or activity) is central to the idea of community. Full membership in a community requires social participation; and a community cannot exist in an inert state. Certainly individuals may identify themselves as members of communities in which they do not actively participate. For example, a fourth generation Canadian may identify herself as Scottish, and in fact feel a very strong allegiance to that identity. But is she a member of the Scottish community? This paper argues that she is not; she may identify closely with the Scottish community but cannot claim membership in it unless she participates in that community meaningfully. A similar issue arises with virtual learning communities. People who choose to remain as spectators (a.k.a. lurkers, voyeurs) may identify closely with the virtual learning community they observe, but they cannot claim membership in it until they participate in it in some manner. Interaction in a community usually results in engagement of ideas, people and processes. An individual must go beyond interaction to achieve engagement in a virtual learning community. It is important to recognize that in a virtual learning community engagement may vary among members, but at some level, participants must engage the community to be considered members. An individual can operate on the periphery of a virtual learning community and still be a part of the group, and can even learn a great deal by engaging the ideas and observing the interactions of other members. Knowledge in a learning community is not necessarily concentrated at its core. People operating on the margins of a virtual learning community comprise a great deal of what can be considered the knowledge of the community. But to become a contributing

member of a community, engagement has to happen, and ultimately it is important for the tacit knowledge held by community members on the periphery of the community to be made explicit. If this does not happen, then it mitigates the effectiveness of the community and erodes its structure. When individuals engage a virtual community, some measure of alignment occurs. Individuals align personal, private purposes with the collective, public purposes of the community. In this way, alignment coordinates personal and communal intentions. But personal and community alignment is a dynamic process. An individual's personal intentions alter the community, and the community massages the personal intentions of individuals. So the term alignment describes the constant negotiation and repositioning of the individual with the community as the two work to shape each other.

Emphases of Virtual Learning Communities
Virtual learning communities are learning communities based on shared purpose rather than geography. Through technology, learners can be drawn together from almost anywhere, and they can construct their own formal or informal groups. People in virtual learning communities are separated by space, but not necessarily time, as communication can be facilitated by technology in real time, thereby partially overcoming physical barriers. Extending the work of Bellah (1985) and Kowch and Schwier (1997), it is possible to classify at least five emphases of virtual learning communities: communities of relationship communities of place, communities of intent, communities of reflection, and communities of ceremony (see Figure 2).

Virtual Learning Communities of Relationship
A community built on relationships emphasizes connections among people that might be based on a shared concern, issue or learning problem. In every case, the emphasis is on the relationships built among participants (Kowch and Schwier, 1997). Issues of commitment, trust and values are inherent in any relationships that emerge in the community. Learning in a community of relationship places an emphasis on social aspects, sometimes at the expense of content or substance; process is often valued over product or achievement. There are a number of examples of communities of relationship, and arguably, these most closely embrace the kinds of interactions one finds in terrestrial communities. Some examples of this type of community are virtual support groups such as Alanon or AAA, “big sister or brother” sites, and virtual home study chat rooms.

Virtual Learning Communities of Place
Individuals in this type of community enjoy a common habitat or locale. This sharing of place with others can offer a sense of security, commonality, and

heritage. There are a number of examples of place-based virtual communities, among them the Blacksburg Electronic Village, one of the better-known community network initiatives in the United States (http://www.bev.net/). The Blacksburg Electronic Village was built to enhance the physical community of Blacksburg, Virginia and it offers a wide range of electronic communication services and information to residents. The place need not be terrestrial, however, and in virtual communities, places are by definition not physical. People from several countries can gather in one virtual place on the Internet, for example, as easily as people can gather for a meeting in a school building. Nevertheless, the location can be as real as the imagination and technology allow. The Internet houses thousands of virtual store fronts, for example, each of which exists metaphorically as a place.

Virtual Learning Communities of Ideas
Communities of ideas reinforce people's commitment to common interests and shared values. This could be as modest as an interest in comic books, or as intricate as a shared interest in gender politics. The two most distinguishable features of a community of ideas are sharing and common interests, and they are most often characterized as purposeful or focused, and they often adopt an achievement or product orientation. An established place to visit on the web to see virtual communities of ideas is “the Well,” which is also one of the longest operating and successful such sites on the Web (www.well.com). It is actually a collection of communities, based on the interests of the participants.

Virtual Learning Communities of Reflection
A virtual learning community of reflection is based on a shared past or a common sense of history. Its purpose is to collectively examine events that had common significance for the community members, ponder the past, raise questions, discuss values and examine the event. For example, groups of war veterans have created virtual communities to share thoughts, ideas and memories. This community connects people who might otherwise feel isolated, and also provides a focal point for interpreting and understanding commonly experienced events. Generally speaking, a virtual learning community of reflection is very process-oriented, and deliberately focused on making sense of shared events. One such website is the Vietnam Veterans Home Page, which has as its stated goal:
To provide an interactive, on-line forum for Vietnam Veterans and their families and friends to exchange information, stories, poems, songs, art, pictures, and experiences in any publishable form. (http://grunt.space.swri.edu/)

Virtual Learning Communities of Ceremony
A virtual learning community of ceremony is based on ritual and celebration. Often, the celebration is based on an event or the ritual practice of a group and has an element of tradition associated with it, such as religion, sports, or university affiliation. Members identify strongly with the group or the event. For example, the communities page available through Excite (http://www.excite.com/communities/) offers a wide range of communities based on various world religions. Some examples include communities named Angelic Interest, New Age Spirituality, New Age Philosophy, Muslim, Today’s Islam, Christian Singles Forum, Tibetan Buddhism, Chevrah, and Harkham Hillel Friends. The same page offers sports communities, such as the St. Croix Soccer Club and Miami University Sports. For a subscription fee, Irish Online is available to all alumni of the University of Notre Dame, and it includes an email address for members, access to an online directory of alumni, and email lists and discussion groups. These communities are ceremonial, in that their purposes are linked to larger entities that have an element of ritual or high degree of personal identification associated with them. These five types of communities are not mutually exclusive. Often, any particular virtual learning community will exhibit features of several of these types. The types overlap and may shift in importance within a single virtual community based on the interests of community members. For example, creators of the Buddhism community website may have chosen to emphasize ceremony in the community, but it will also have elements of intent, relationship and reflection. Various members of the Buddhism community will determine which categories will be prominent, and the emphasis will be different for each member.

Ten Elements of Community
Once the purpose of a group is identified, what turns the group into a community rather than merely a collection of people with a common purpose? Several features should be present to give the label of community to a virtual gathering place of people. Selznick (1996) in a discussion of terrestrial communities identified seven: historicity, identity, mutuality, plurality, autonomy, participation, and integration. At least three elements need to be added to this list in the case of virtual learning communities: an orientation to the future (after Wenger, 1998), technology, and learning (see Figure 2). These ten elements underscore the idea that communities are complex. Any adequate understanding of virtual learning communities needs to recognize that these variables interact multi-dimensionally. Historicity. Communities are stronger when they share history and culture. Conversely, they are weak when they are based on general interests and abstract ideas. The quality of participation depends on individual and shared commitment or relevance of the substance of the community. Commitment

depends on shared values in the community. At minimum, the strength of the commitment need only be sufficient to maintain participation in the group, but stronger commitment generally leads to the development of stronger communities. Identity. Communities foster a sense of shared identity. Successful virtual learning communities need to have boundaries—an identity or recognized focus. Mutuality. Communities spring from, and are maintained by interdependence and reciprocity. While virtual communities are built around central themes, ideas or purposes, the organizing principles are not externally imposed. Participants construct purposes, intentions and the protocol for interaction. Plurality. Communities draw much of their vitality from "intermediate associations" such as families, churches, and other peripheral groups. Autonomy. Within the emphasis on group identity, it is important that communities respect and protect individual identity. Individuals interact with each other and have the capacity to conduct discourse freely and meaningfully, or withdraw from discourse without penalty. Interaction must be based on influence among participants rather than power relationships. Participation. Social participation in the community, especially participation that promotes self-determination supports autonomy and sustains the community. Participants can select the level of intimacy appropriate for any relationship with another participant or with the group. Anonymity is possible, but as the sense of community develops, it is unlikely that a participant would choose to remain anonymous. Integration. All of the above elements depend on supportive norms, beliefs and practices. Future. Learning communities are not static; they create movement in a direction. Learning communities "open trajectories of participation that place engagement in its practice in the context of a valued future' (Wenger, 1998, p.215). Technology. In virtual learning communities, technology facilitates and development of community, but also inhibits its growth. It brings together individuals who might otherwise not engage one another. It acts as the conduit for discourse among participants, and it is the medium of engagement that binds the community together. At the same time, technology can be a barrier to communication and can exclude some people from the community who cannot afford or use communications technology. Learning. Learning is a central element of virtual learning communities, although the nature of the learning can be broadly defined and contextual. For

the purpose of defining elements of community, it isn’t really important whether learning is focussed, lasting,, substantial, educationally sound, associated with any particular curricula, or entirely serendipitous. The point is that people in a virtual learning community want to learn, and the purposes to which that learning may be put are irrelevant to the legitimacy of the community. That is not to say that learning in a virtual learning community is not purposeful; it should be, but the purposes can be defined by users and the purposes may not fit traditional ideas of what constitutes acceptable learning. This list of elements begs the question of whether all of them are necessary for a community to exist, particularly a virtual learning community. Is it necessary, for example, for a virtual learning community to exhibit plurality? Depending on their focus and membership, it might be argued that some virtual learning communities can flourish in isolation. In fact, one measure of community strength might be the degree to which members create a cloister, a safe haven separated from the plurality of associations we expect to find in terrestrial communities. At least, the peripheral associations of community members might have little relevance to the success or strength of the virtual learning community in these instances. At the same time, these elements inform our understanding of how communities work, and depending on the nature and intent of a particular virtual learning community, they may apply. The interaction and importance of various elements may be different for different virtual learning communities, but they are still useful for helping us understand how communities can be grown and maintained. It is probably apparent that these ten elements are not realized by chance. Communities do not just happen; but neither are they created. What we are attempting to do as educators is promote the development of virtual learning communities by nurturing the conditions under which they can arise. We can wheedle, cajole, beg whine and nag learners to become involved, but ultimately it is the learners who will determine whether a virtual learning community springs from the ooze. Still, there is much that can be done to support these elements. An important principle to growing a virtual learning community is to be deliberate, to think about and do things purposefully to foster community growth. A sampling of ideas is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Representative implications of elements for virtual learning communities (from Schwier, in press).. Element Historicity Implications for Virtual Learning Communities Incorporate what members have done in the past, and make their stories part of the community culture. Explicit mention of the culture, value and context of the virtual community. Make public the history of the community. Use team-building exercises, develop community logos, and publicly acknowledge accomplishments by the group and individual members

Identity

within the community. Articulate the focus or purpose of the community, and outline the requirements and rituals accompanying membership in the community. Mutuality Include group exercises, assignments, activities that require each member to contribute to the final product. Ask leading questions that encourage members of the community to invest in concerns held by other members, and to share ideas and possible solutions. Encourage membership and participation from and association with groups related to the learning focus. These might include businesses, professional associations, or groups in other countries exploring similar issues. Foster individual expression and comment explicitly on its value. Set up protocol for respectful communication and reach consensus in the group. Create strategies for settling disputes or inappropriate behavior. Allow members of the group to shape learning agendas. Give guidance to new community members, and promote opportunities for established members to go outside the boundaries of the learning event or focus. Encourage lurkers and voyeurs. Articulate a set of belief statements, and identify group norms as they emerge and evolve. Adopt and firmly adhere to a learner-centered philosophy, and employ pedagogy that celebrates individuals while building a group identity. Identify direction of learning. Ask participants to describe ways they will use what they have learned in the community in the future. Conduct "visioning" exercises to determine new initiatives to be undertaken by the community. Employ technology that allows meaningful communication, and which is easy for participants to use. Promote communication approaches that are compatible with older, less costly equipment where communities intend to be inclusive. A community moderator should remind participants of learning intentions, and intervene when interaction drifts too far away from the learning focus. Encourage individuals on the periphery of the community to contribute their tacit knowledge to the explicit knowledge of the community.

Plurality

Autonomy

Participation

Integration

Future

Technology

Learning

Research Issues Raised by Virtual Learning Communities
If educators choose to support the development of virtual learning communities, a number of issues emerge. Some issues are financial and logistic—how does one assemble the technological and personal systems necessary to construct and maintain a communication system? But the more important questions center on the design, implementation, pedagogy and effects of virtual learning

communities, the socio-educational aspects of learning through this means of communication. A few of the issues that invite investigation are listed below, although many more seem to arise every day. • • How do people select virtual learning communities and how do they make use of them for learning? How do voluntary members of virtual learning communities differ from those who are assigned to learning communities in formal educational contexts? What are the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful virtual learning communities? How do virtual communities recruit and maintain members? Are there rules of engagement or particular protocols for insinuating an individual into the fabric of a virtual learning community, and is the process contextually or culturally bound? Does the process mirror interpersonal group learning contexts? How does a new member of a community join discussions of established community members and develop a persona or reputation? Are there power relationships in virtual learning communities, and how do they interact with learning variables? In virtual learning communities that permit members to remain anonymous, how does the anonymity of participants influence the tenor of interactions and the satisfaction of the participants? Do elements of community exhibit themselves in virtual learning communities, and do they inform our understanding of how these communities contribute to learning environments? What is the nature of learning in virtual contexts, and how do architects, active members and lurkers describe their experiences? What value do administrators, educators and learners place on virtual learning communities? How do political, social, educational and personal agendas interact in the development maintenance and alteration of virtual learning communities. Do virtual learning communities exhibit lifecycles, and what significance does this have for their design? What are the pedagogical issues involved in virtual learning communities? How can we use them for teaching?

• • •

•

•

•

• •

• •

This paper does not pretend that using technology to support the development of virtual learning communities will address the many challenges faced by schools and other institutionalized learning communities. In fact, it is quite possible that virtual learning communities will remain largely irrelevant to formal, institution-based education. Many people are already technologically literate, and many already participate in informal virtual learning communities. Nevertheless, this paper proposes a way of using technology that is consistent with constructivist changes underway in education, and suggests that virtual learning communities can contribute to the way we respond to those changes.

References
Bellah, R.N. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper Collins. Brook, J., & Boal, I.A. (1995). Resisting the virtual life: The culture and politics of information. San Francisco: City Lights Books. Brown, J.S., & Isaac's, D. (1995). Building corporations as communities: The best of both worlds. In K. Gozdz (ed.), Community building: Renewing spirit and learning in business. San Francisco: Sterling and Stone. Cohill, A.M. (1997). Success factors of the Blacksburg Electronic Village. In A.M. Cohill & A.L. Kavanaugh (eds.), Community networks: Lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia (pp. 297-318). Norwood, MA: Artech House. Ehrenfeld, D. (1996). Pseudocommunities. In W. Vitek & W. Jackson (eds.), Rooted in the land (pp. 20-24). New Haven: Yale University Press. Farrow, C.S. (1999). The electronic buffalo: A web tale. On Campus News, University of Saskatchewan, January 9, p.5. Horn, S. Cyberville: Clicks, culture, and the creation of an online town. New York: Warner Books. Kessell, S. (1999). Postgraduate courses on the WWW: Teaching the teachers and educating the professors. Available WWW: (http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/development/#top). Kowch, E, & Schwier, R.A. (1997). Considerations in the construction of technology-based virtual learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 26(1), 1-12. Kozma, R. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5-15.